←back to thread

I don't think AGI is right around the corner

(www.dwarkesh.com)
336 points mooreds | 3 comments | 06 Jul 25 20:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.621s | source
Show context
izzydata ◴[06 Jul 25 21:24 UTC] No.44484180[source]▶
Not only do I not think it is right around the corner. I'm not even convinced it is even possible or at the very least I don't think it is possible using conventional computer hardware. I don't think being able to regurgitate information in an understandable form is even an adequate or useful measurement of intelligence. If we ever crack artificial intelligence it's highly possible that in its first form it is of very low intelligence by humans standards, but is truly capable of learning on its own without extra help.
replies(10): >>44484210 #>>44484226 #>>44484229 #>>44484355 #>>44484381 #>>44484384 #>>44484386 #>>44484439 #>>44484454 #>>44484478 #
kachapopopow ◴[06 Jul 25 21:27 UTC] No.44484210[source]▶
There is something easy you can always do to tell if something is just hype: we will never be able to make something smarter than a human brain on purpose. It effectively has to happen either naturally or by pure coincidence.

The amount of computing power we are putting in only changes that luck by a tiny fraction.

replies(1): >>44484257 #
echoangle ◴[06 Jul 25 21:33 UTC] No.44484257[source]▶
> we will never be able to make something smarter than a human brain on purpose. It effectively has to happen either naturally or by pure coincidence.

Why is that? We can build machines that are much better than humans in some things (calculations, data crunching). How can you be certain that this is impossible in other disciplines?

replies(1): >>44484342 #
1. kachapopopow ◴[06 Jul 25 21:42 UTC] No.44484342[source]▶
that's just a tiny fraction of what a human brain can do, sure we can get something better in very narrow subjects, but something as being able to recognize patterns apply that to solve problems is something way beyond anything we can even think of right now.
replies(1): >>44484373 #
2. echoangle ◴[06 Jul 25 21:47 UTC] No.44484373[source]▶
Ok, but how does that mean that we will never be able to do it? Imagine telling people 500 years ago that you will build a machine that can bring the to the moon. Maybe AGI is like that, maybe it’s really impossible. But how can people be confident that AGI is something humans can’t create?
replies(1): >>44484431 #
3. kachapopopow ◴[06 Jul 25 21:53 UTC] No.44484431[source]▶
What we have right now with llms is bruteforcing our way to create something 'smarter' than a human, of course it can happen, but it's not something that can be 'created' by a human. An llm as small as 3b already performed more calculations than all the calculations done in the entire human history.